If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Don't see any point in it really; the current setup is fine (back to front) as you have full court coverage.

I wouldn't want to see the sweat dripping off a player's chin or the zooming and blurring of a player's back/face. IMO, all these fancy 'cool' angles are only good for a promo perspective or as the 'highlight reel'.

I think the key is not to overuse non-traditional camera angles. The majority of the match should be watched from the back angle with occasional "creative" use of other cameras. In tennis for example, if there was a good rally, this was employed to highlight the play or a player's movement in the replay.

So, thumpsky, you're talking about highlight reel stuff, rather than game coverage? I agree, it's all cool stuff. But there would be nothing worse during live coverage than to have a shaky closeup desperately chasing a player around in a small field of view, without any context to the actual play.

Don't see any point in it really; the current setup is fine (back to front) as you have full court coverage.

I wouldn't want to see the sweat dripping off a player's chin or the zooming and blurring of a player's back/face. IMO, all these fancy 'cool' angles are only good for a promo perspective or as the 'highlight reel'.

Justin

Respectfully disagree. The traditional camera angle of the whole court is not good enough.

we need ultra high definition, high frame rate, close up shots to capture subtle things like deception and hold shots.

I don't think that part of the coverage is deficient. The current replay system already covers that sufficiently. Ultra high definition isn't going to do much to bring the game to a wider audience. And, it's not going to improve the quality for the vast majority of North Americans who currently can only watch the events live online rather than on TV.

One of the biggest problems for exposure to the North American markets is that the major tournaments take place in Asia and Europe so time zones become an issue.

If we are talking mainly about the North American market, another hurdle that doesn't get talked about is star power. You need a player to burst on the scene that has a certain charisma. If you look at tennis, look at players like Agassi or Andy Roddick. Before Agassi ever got close to number 1 he was popular just based on charisma. Same with Andy Roddick whose popularity with the fans is beyond what his actual achievements would merit.

Have a look at some of Roddick's post match interviews and compare them with post match interviews with the badminton players such as LCW or LD. The badminton interviews are about as exciting as watching paint dry. There is way too much P.C. in badminton. Boe or some other player smashes his racquet once and it leads to a bunch of hand wringing and tsk tsking here on the forums. God forbid a player should show any emotion!

Bottom line, the quality of entertainment of the game needs to increase. You can put a nature documentary on the hunting habits of Tigers on normal TV and at the same time on a different channel put an ultra HD, multi-camera anlgle, super slow motion replay documentary on the courtship rituals of the Box Tortoise. Which do you think is going to get more views?

IMHO, there is not enough time given to the horizontal camera at the end of the court. It is from this angle that we can really see the speed of the game.

Respectfully disagree your disagreement

It really depends when and where and what camera angle is used. I can see benefits of zoomed close ups/slow-mos during breaks, replays or highlights but definitely not definitely not during when a point is being played.

When a point is being played, a full court coverage view is required; it is all about field of view (similar to what Fidget said above). Same as to how other sports are doing this too; basketball, football, etc. When a point is being played, it switches out to the full court view.

What would be cool though is perhaps one day when TV sets are big enough, we can fit multiple big enough view options on one single TV, i.e. have a full court coverage view + others. Even a first person view like this http://youtu.be/lZA-57h64kE or a GoPro cam (although it would be have to shrink in size considerably) would be good.

Either way, from my view (lol), in summary:
- point being played: full court coverage
- replay/highlights: all the fancy smancy views you could ever want

Don't see any point in it really; the current setup is fine (back to front) as you have full court coverage.

I wouldn't want to see the sweat dripping off a player's chin or the zooming and blurring of a player's back/face. IMO, all these fancy 'cool' angles are only good for a promo perspective or as the 'highlight reel'.

Justin

watch 4:55.

A lot of badminton is anticipation as well. A tight shot showing the serving player making a hand sign can educate the audience about the importance of the serve and set plays.

In other sports you have the commentators educating the audience with all kinds of graphics and diagrams. Badminton should do the same.

A lot of badminton is anticipation as well. A tight shot showing the serving player making a hand sign can educate the audience about the importance of the serve and set plays.

In other sports you have the commentators educating the audience with all kinds of graphics and diagrams. Badminton should do the same.

A bunch of gimickery adds very little and can end up just being foolish. I don't think badminton is as well suited as team sports are for this type of thing. When I see it in Tennis perhaps I'll be less skeptical. Basically you seem to be trying to dress up the game rather than looking at the fundamental reasons why the game has trouble breaking through in North America. Badminton lacks character. It's kind of funny because after my last post, I had a look at Agassi's wiki page and the first paragraph reinforced my point.

"Andre Kirk Agassi (/ˈɑːndreɪˈæɡəsi/; born April 29, 1970) is a retired American professional tennis player and former world no. 1.[3] Generally considered by critics and fellow players to be one of the greatest tennis players of all time, Agassi has been called the best service returner in the history of the game. Described by the BBC upon his retirement as "perhaps the biggest worldwide star in the sport's history", Agassi's performances, along with his unorthodox apparel and attitude, have seen him cited as one of the most charismatic players in the history of the game, and credited for helping revive the popularity of tennis during the 1990s."